In his column July 1 ("The politics of casinos"), Rick Holmes writes there are no federal issues involved in the casino debate in Massachusetts. I would respectfully suggest otherwise. In the last several months three major casinos in the northeast corridor of the United States have filed for federal bankruptcy protection. Prior to these three, and in other parts of the country, casino owners have routinely walked into federal courts seeking various levels of federal bankruptcy protection. When casinos bail out on their financial obligations, thousands of hard working Americans absorb the hit.

Casinos in Massachusetts are also a local issue. Ask any surrounding community that has been ignored by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission as they attempt to ramrod three resort style casinos into the Commonwealth by sheer will, and not by a reasonable democratic process. Casinos in Massachusetts are also a state issue. The obsession with Beacon Hill to balance the state budget on flawed financial models provided by so-called casino industry experts will only lead to further budget battles in the years ahead. And yes, casinos in Massachusetts are a federal issue. Whether it be Native American tribal concerns, the federal interstate system used to provide access to sites, environmental issues, or financial matters, the impact of casinos can be felt at all levels of government.

For several years I have been strongly opposed to the development of resort style casinos in the commonwealth. The issues go well beyond the financial instability of the industry and will be fully vetted by the citizens of Massachusetts between now and November 4th. I look forward to participating in this very public debate as the Republican nominee for United States Senate.